Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

BTW I should say that I have some sympathy with Rob’s viewpoint here.  It
looks like it might be hard to get consensus about the nits we want to pick
here on 4627, and JSON in the wild works just fine, and the real de facto
irritant is that ECMAScript does some non-4627-blessed things.  I’m willing
to put some more work into the struggle for consensus, but if we just
decided to give up, just add a “Stupid ECMAScript Tricks” section then
declare victory, that wouldn’t be a terrible outcome. -T

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:57 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> From charter:
>
> "The work is essentially a reclassification in place, with minimal
> changes. The working group will review errata and update the document as
> needed to incorporate those, and will correct significant errors and inconsistencies,
> but will keep changes to a minimum."
>
> I propose a new section, to appear after "Generators" and before "IANA
> Considerations"
>
> + N. Differences from ECMAScript
> +
> + ECMAScript implementations produce and consume primitive JSON values at
> the
> + root level of JSON documents.
>
> It's my opinion that none of the errors or inconsistencies present in the
> document are significant, since JSON works pretty well. I'll probably
> oppose any edits that aren't to the introduction or the security
> considerations, including updates to references such as ABNF and Unicode.
> Note that the IETF does not update all standards track documents with
> obsolete references, which demonstrates that leaving the current references
> in place is tractable.
>
> - Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>